Putting the feud back in "feudalism"

[Jens Z]

The "rules" of inheritance in England, France and especially Germany based on local law and were not all the same durnig the middle ages. Actually the nobles in Europe used several different kind of "sytems" for chosing their King/Emperor, depending on location and tradition. Moreover, time also plays a role: While during the Middle Ages the Kings of Western Europe (and their Inheritance) became more and more stronger, we observe the opposite in Germany.

Creating a game mechanic simulating this would certainly be tough, although it would be really nice to have.

 

[unmerged(11366)]

You know, Abdul, while there may be problems about time period, your plan sounds like so much fun that I think Paradox should make a whole new game around it, earlier in the Middle Ages!

I can't wait to buy it...

But seriously. I'm not a historian for this era, so I'm not so sure about whether this fits for the CK time frame, but if it doesn't, CKII could easily make use of your system and start a few years earlier. It's a possibility...

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Abdul Goatherd
The king's mightiest resource was not his treasury (a pittance) but his deft ability to knit varying & temporary alliances among his vassals. The vassals did "the king's business", not because they were "loyal to the blood", but because a particular item of that business was structured in a way that rewarded or threatened the vassal's advantage.

I don't see this in the current design of CK.

But based on the descriptions so far, it does seem like this is like the current design of CK. Ie the player-dynasty controls only limited territory (and hence wealth) directly, and must keep fractious vassals loyal and happy to maintain a broader authority. What am I missing?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Originally posted by Keynes
But based on the descriptions so far, it does seem like this is like the current design of CK. Ie the player-dynasty controls only limited territory (and hence wealth) directly, and must keep fractious vassals loyal and happy to maintain a broader authority. What am I missing?

Kingdom-level Peers which operate by different rules than regular vassals. e.g. the Dukes of Aquitaine and Normandy are peers of the realm. They both have their own demesnes. And they both have vassals (e.g. Count of Alencon is a vassal of Normandy, Count of Poitou a vassal of Aquitaine) which they "keep happy" in the normal way.

Say Aquitaine becomes King of France. Now Normandy is a vassal of Aquitaine -- but not in the same way as Poitou is a vassal of Aquitaine. Aquitaine must treat Normandy very differently than it treats Poitou, e.g. it has much more limited ways to keep Normandy happy. Normandy should be quasi-independent in a way that Poitou isn't.

Kingly powers should be "special". They should not merely be ducal powers on a larger scale. They are qualitatively different.

Perhaps they have inserted another way of capturing this difference.